The elevator speech
Suzanne’s Elevator speech was far more in line with her own objectives than that of the objectives formally adopted by the incorporated society , her response proves that she has no idea what the objectives of the society are shown at point 4 on the latest rules

The registered objectives are principally “to promote transparency, good governance and ethical practices in all sectors of society in New Zealand”

There is nothing in the rules which says anything about focusing on building stronger integrity systems or praising a society for being “already trusting “by deliberately ignoring corruption which is occurring.

I really have to wonder where the assumption of the already trusting society comes from Susan Snively is an economist and I have learned that assumptions are a very good starting point for economists.

“A physicist, a chemist, and an economist are stranded on a desert island. One can only imagine what sort of play date went awry to land them there. Anyway, they’re hungry. Like, desert island hungry. And then a can of soup washes ashore, Campbells Chicken Noodle, let’s say. Which is perfect, because the physicist can’t have much salt, and the chemist doesn’t eat red meat.
But, famished as they are, our three professionals have no way to open the can. So they put their brains to the problem. The physicist says “We could drop it from the top of that tree over there until it breaks open.” And the chemist says “We could build a fire and sit the can in the flames until it bursts open.”
Those two squabble a bit, until the economist says “No, no, no. Come on, guys, you’d lose most of the soup. Let’s just assume a can opener.”

While on the subject of assumptions it has become apparent to me that Suzanne Snively may not be familiar with the legislation which governs the incorporated society , as will be noted later in the interview she said that she was unsure of the structure of Transparency International and thought that it was a company.

The overriding feeling of the interview was that Suzanne wanted to recruit more members so as to increase revenue but Incorporated societies do not exist for pecuniary gain.

Membership
Suzanne claims that there are about 100 members , if you look at the web site you will see that the vast majority of the members are connected with either the large audit companies who contract to the office of the auditor general or are Government departments or past employees of these departments.

The perception which can be gained from the membership list is that the vast majority of the members have a vested interest in keeping the lid on corruption In New Zealand. This becomes obvious when you visit the partners/ sponsors page
There is one golden rule which pertains to impartiality and that is you cannot be impartial if you comprised of and paid for by the people whose integrity you are judging.

This in itself means that there is a lack of integrity.

Any good economist will tell you that if you get your wages paid by a group of people and or organisations that they will no doubt employ you again in the future if you do a favourable job.

So in this instance TINZ did an integrity study on 13 pillars this is who worked on them and how they were funded, note that I have paired up the funders to the pillar which they would most naturally be associated with . The researchers are as mentioned in the integrity report . You can see who funded and researched the various pillars here Who funded and worked on the various pillars

A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks “What do two plus two equal?” The mathematician replies “Four.” The interviewer asks “Four, exactly?” The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says “Yes, four, exactly.”

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The accountant says “On average, four – give or take ten percent, but on average, four.”

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says “What do you want it to equal?”

Suzanne’s perception of the TINZ chapter

only 5% of the population knows it exists.

My comment: Yes but they sure get the false message out that there is no corruption in New Zealand

The group that was initially involved was focused on building a chapter but not necessarily on how to get the message out to the wider community

My comment: They were and still are Government servants dressed up as a watchdog to tell the country how well they are concealing corruption.

I knew nothing about TI until I became a director

My comment: I am so impressed that Susan Has learnt so much about corruption in New Zealand in three short years especially since she has never examined corruption and does not wish to know it is there, In typical Economist style she has carefully studied everything except the reality

Three economists went out hunting, and came across a large deer. The first economists fired, but missed, by a meter to the left. The second economists fired, but also missed, by a meter to the right. The third economists didn’t fire, but shouted in triumph, “We got it! We got it!”

At about the same time a colleague became executive chairman of the Cambodian branch he got funding and got over a million dollars.

My comment: My own suspicion is that Susan saw the possibility of becoming the CEO and getting funding to pay her wages , I have sen this tactic used in many incorporated societies, most of the members dont care a toss and leave one person to run the joint and let them find a way to get their own wages . Incorporated societies are not supposed to work that way but when you can be part of an organization which protects you from scrutiny in your day job then its a great trade of for some.

we do have some govt members at the moment they became members to support the work of the TI integrity systems assessment

My comment: there is no integrity in getting people to fund the independent research which affects them , its like paying for advertising and a lot more efficient when a government department e.g. the office of the auditor general can pay some one to show how effective they are being. That is far more economic than actually doing a good job

Q:Why did God create economists ?
A:In order to make weather forecasters look good

very few people are aware of how well we score internationally and that international perceptions of our lack of corruption are not as widely understood across NZ as it could be , if it is true that we can be proud of as because it makes a difference to us as a trading nation in terms of how we trade and do business

My comment:it is all about boosting business not about the reality

Experienced economist and not so experienced economist are walking down the road. They get across shit lying on the asphalt.

Experienced economist: “If you eat it I’ll give you $20,000!”

Not so experienced economist runs his optimization problem and figures out he’s better off eating it so he does and collects money.

Continuing along the same road they almost step into yet another shit.

Not so experienced economist: “Now, if YOU eat this shit I’ll give YOU $20,000.”

They go on. Not so experienced economist starts thinking: “Listen, we both have the same amount of money we had before, but we both ate shit. I don’t see us being better off.”

Experienced economist: “Well, that’s true, but you overlooked the fact that we’ve been just involved in $40,000 of trade.”

the international perception is that we have the least or amongst the least corrupt public sector in the world

My comment: Yes that perception is kept alive by the members of transparency International New Zealand who are those very same govt departments and also fund the work to make themselves look great.

It means that you can get up in the morning and go about your business without paying a backhander without paying facilitation or a bribe.

My comment: I agree there are very few bribes or backhanders in New Zealand but on the other hand every one has some dirt on every one else and although the monitary transactions dont come into it , there are often winks and nods involved… same thing- corruption

we focus on systemic issues around corruption to ensure that there are systems in place that deal with corruption

My comment: but TINZ deal with the hypothetical only and refuse to look at the corruption which is occurring to learn from it to see how it occurs. You cannot combat something which you dont understand.

Q: What is a recent economics graduate’s usual question in his first job?
A: What would you like to have with your french fries sir?

to be continued …..

If all economists were laid end to end they would not reach a conclusion.
– George Bernard Shaw

GCSB RecruitmentSnively : We would not go after that specific instance we did raise that we need a more transparent approach of dealing with political appointments to boards etc.

My comment : Transparency alone will not resolve such issues , it is about accountability and when there is no accountability to the public and politicians can do as they please then we live by the rule of might is right .

Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion – Accountability

John BanksSnively : We are strong in our report about transparency in all political funding we expect businesses to be transparent so why not political parties

My comment : Transparency is even more important in the government sector . The use of secret trusts has reached epidemic proportions, again we have Len Brown receiving ¾ million from an unincorporated trust, i.e. unidentifiable, that is anonymous. Six months after the complaint was lodged nothing has happened. Police don’t know how to deal with trusts least of all trusts which do not exist.

In a Mayday parade in the Soviet Union. After the tanks and the troops and the planes and the missiles rolled by there came ten men dressed in black.

“Are they Spies?” Asked Gorby?

“They are economists,” replies the KGB director, “imagine the havoc they will wreak when we set them loose on the Americans”

Gambling. Conference center

Snively : fast forward to 44.33 for her comments they have me scratching my head

My comment : Sky city is part of the committee for Auckland , there appears to be extraordinary pressure placed on political parties and council officers from them.

An economist is someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about – and make you feel it’s your fault.

Web site and Membership

Snively : we really like to be exclusive – inclusive as we can be

My comment : I thought this was a hoot the first word was exclusive which I am certain would be the true desire as persons bringing examples of corruption to the meeting are not welcome .

The First Law of Economists: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist.
The Second Law of Economists: They’re both wrong.

Steve Hart: Refers to my application to join transparency International (I have made three applications I set up Transparency NZ Ltd after being rejected )

Snively : I came in without the baggage of the people who directed before me so I did not know about Grace so I was quite welcoming that she might be a member but if you look at her web site she is strongly anti our chapter and people who want to be members need to be supportive.

My comment: Suzanne Snively is but one person, one vote in an incorporated society , does her statement mean that there is not a democratic process for the selection of members . When I last spoke to Susan about membership she told me I had to get rid of my company name as it was too close to their name.

I believe that I am supportive of the aims and objectives of Transparency International as set out in their constitution, perhaps Suzanne needs to take a hard look at what she is doing and take time out to read her societies rules.

One day a woman went for a walk in her neighborhood and came across a boy with some puppies. “Would you like a puppy? They aren’t ready for new homes quite yet, but they will be in a few weeks!”
“Oh, they’re adorable,” the lady said. “What kind of dogs are they?”
“These are economists.”
“OK. I’ll tell my husband.”
So she went home and told her husband. He was very interested to see the puppies. About a week later he came across the lad; the puppies were very active.
“Hey, Mister. Want a puppy?”
“I think my wife spoke with you last week. What kind of dogs are these?”
“Oh. These are Investigators.”
“I thought you said last week that they were economists.”
“Yeah, but they’ve opened their eyes since then.”

Snively : I am really very embarrassed my problem is that I am not a great linkedin or face book person I get over 300 emails per day which doesn’t leave me much time and I don’t get much sleep because there is a lot of work to do to build this chapter. When I went onto likedin I quickly filled out the profile thing and I was a new director so I just googled to see what the name was and of course Graces web site came up first and I thought oh that’s it so I put it down but we are an incorporated society and so Grace has obviously decided that she want a very similar name to ours and I made the mistake of thinking that she was the same as us and I changed it as you can see.

My comments:

1. Type in the word transparency and this is what comes up .. TI NZ comes up first every time

Transparency International New Zealand – TINZ
www.transparency.org.nz/‎
Transparency International New Zealand is the recognised New Zealand representative of Transparency International, the global coalition against corruption.

Transparency New Zealand
www.transparency.net.nz/‎
Apr 20, 2014 – Transparency New Zealand and Transparency International NZ are very different in that TI-NZ wishes to sell New Zealand to the world as the .

2. There is nothing on either link that would indicate whether it is an incorporated society or Limited liability company. Suzanne the economist simply assumed and assumed wrong.

DirectorTransparency International
November 2010 – Present (3 years) | New Zealand Chapter
Transparency International – New Zealand Chapter is developing a growth strategy to work with
partners to build capability to that our reputation for high trust and integrity is as good as we are
perceived.

Then two below that

Executive ChairTransparency International New Zealand Ltd
November 2010 – Present (3 years) | New Zealand
As a country with low corruption, New Zealand has the potential to be an examplar to others,
demonstrating how this can improve business profitability through lower cost of doing business in
overseas countries, better access, lower cost of capital and for those listed companies, a higher
yeilding share price.

It is sad that a person at the helm of an organisation has not checked out the structure of the organisation as they are run in very different ways

4. As to the name being similar we just need to look at the news item this week of Cadbury and Whittakers Whittaker’s wins ‘Berry Forest’ battle. Does transparency International New Zealand incorporated sound the same as Transparency New Zealand Limited ?

One night a policewoman saw an economist looking for something buy a light pole. She asked her if she had lost something there. The economist said, “I lost my keyes over in the alley.” The policewoman asked her why she was looking by the light pole. The economist responded, “it’s a lot easier to look over here.”

Minutes and agendas

Steve asked about the minutes and agendas, Suzanne goes on at length that they don’t have the resources and finances to get the minutes . I find it quite odd that an incorporated society with 100 members expects to have staff and does not have a properly appointed secretary.( it is a statutory requirement that an incorporated society should not be run for pecuniary gain )

The comments made by Snively really makes me wonder if she knows how an incorporated society operates. She may have sat on lots of councils but this is not a council, this is not a business this is an incorporated society where people are elected by the membership into specific roles to fulfill the functions of the society as set out in the rules.

It is the secretary’s function to take the minutes and type them up. Funding has nothing to do with it.

An economist returns to visit his old school. He’s interested in the current exam questions and asks his old professor to show some. To his surprise they are exactly the same ones to which he had answered 10 years ago! When he asks about this the professor answers: “the questions are always the same – only the answers change!”

My overall impression is that Snively is wanting to build the membership to increase the Funds so that she can be paid a wage. Welcome to the real world Suzanne. I don’t get paid either and I have not sold my soul to various government departments.That is why Transparency New Zealand is totally neutral We can criticize government departments and know it won’t affect our income.

An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn’t happen today.
– Laurence J. Peter

I asked to circulate it at the certified fraud examiners meeting and was declined, have approached political parties for support and was declined. I took to the streets and got support .

I now have a petition ready to go its done signed and all it needs is a minister to present it .. therein lies the rub .

have tried a few who site conflict of interest ( what the hec ??? ) but I obviously have not yet asked those who have stated that they support the call for a commission against corruption so lets see who will be true to their cause.

Today I was sent a link to Lauda Finem , really good read and right on the button .

Guess the difference between Australia is chalk and cheese .. or if you like Wine and Milk .

New Zealand can be likened to the small cute child who thinks they can get away with murder, there is a story to cover every scenario and we dont look at facts for the basis of our research instead we look at statistics and other ( carefully selected ) peoples opinions.

This mode of is evident in the research which Transparency International New Zealand does . The shinning light of Transparency International New Zealand is Susan Snively..In fact I rather suspect that she is the only person involved an that the others are just there as window dressing .( hence no minutes )

In a recent radio interview Play now Susan identifies her sources of information , it clearly puts her in the “apply theories and concepts from economics” category, she speaks of working from statistics and no where is there any real evidence of actually having spoken to the people who would be involved i.e. the women who she claims are the victims of domestic abuse or the employers who she alleges are losing out because of it. In other words her study research and outcomes are derived from second hand information and delivered as” fact”

Compare that to the resignation of the Australian state leader over a $3200 bottle of wine, while Len Brown is still in office despite having received $750,000 from an unidentifiable un locatable private secret trust .. I am told Police investigations are continuing, since the police are not really conversant with trusts dont hold your breath .

I think that the call for a commission agaisnt corruption cannot be soon enough and it should be an election issue .

In the mean time any MP wishing to make a stand agaisnt corruption in New Zealand, I have a petition ready to go .

Open letter to the Directors of Transparency International New Zealand

The Governance body of Transparency New Zealand Limited hereby wishes to express concerns with regards to the ” integrity ” of your organization

You may or may not be aware that Transparency New Zealand was formed when Director Grace Haden was declined membership to TI-NZ on an application which stated that she was a Former police prosecuting Sergeant , Member of the certified fraud examiners association and a licensed private Investigator.

Transparency New Zealand and Transparency International NZ are very different in that TI-NZ wishes to sell New Zealand to the world as the least corrupt country, while Transparency New Zealand wishes to expose corruption so that it does not spread.

We often hear of people who have had cancer and ignored it , their fate is all too often sealed , then there are those who identify cancer early and act , they generally have a much better prognosis ( depending on the type of cancer )

Corruption and cancer are pretty much the same thing. Cancer is caused by the corruption of cells.

We cannot deny that corruption exists , we cannot simply pretend that it is not there and above all we must never reward bad behaviour e.g. by claiming that those who in reality conceal corruption have integrity ( your integrity study )

While Transparency International New Zealand deals with perceptions , Transparency New Zealand deals with reality .

The reality is that every day peoples lives are destroyed by our unjust legal system which has no accountability and has become a tool which criminals use to commit and conceal crime.

The old saying that it is a court of law not a court of justice is some what cynical and unfortunately is true

yet TI- NZ states ” The judiciary provides a system of justice in accordance with the requirements of a legislative framework.” page 107 Integrity Plus 2013 NZ NIS ..

So could some one please explain why TI-NZ believes that the court deliver justice when the people know it does not and this belief even extends to the minister of justice ! TI NZ state ” The court system is seen to be free of corruption and unlawful influence.” It is obvious from that statement that no one involved in the integrity survey has spoken to any of the actual court users especially those involved in the family or civil courts

While Transparency New Zealand ‘s stated objective is to seek accountability and is true to that objective , this does not appear to be the case with TI-NZ with its objectives.

1. TI-NZ claims to be “nonpartisan ” but it wont let me or any other person who is in any way associated a victim of corruption join, RI NZ simply does not want to hear about the prevalence of corruption in New Zealand . There by proving that TI NZ only accepts members who claim that there is no corruption in New Zealand . yet its membership is full of government bodies and members of the universities .

2. TI-NZ will undertake to be open, honest and accountable in our relationships with everyone we work with and with each other..

The profile of director Murray Sheard falsely portrays him to be a current lecturer at Auckland university in conflict with his linked in profile.. another typo ?

The web site of transparency International has been set up by an American resident also named Snively and using a company which there is no record of . ? Nepotism and use of another fictitious company again. But who would notice as the web site states that you need less due diligence in dealing with New Zealand companies.

School of Government Institute for Governance and Policy Studies Wellington

Wellington Girls College

Thorndon New World

NZTE

Institute of Directors

BDO Spicers

Russell McVeigh

Chapman Tripp

Gibson Sheat

Susan Gluck-Hornsby

Chen Palmer

Juliet McKee

Claudia Orange

Te Papa

4. the objectives of TINZ appear to be to encourage business growth and a very dangerous claim is made that “Trading partners recognise cost savings for dealing withNew Zealand through less need for due diligence, lower contracting costs, and a culture intolerant of corrupt middle men with whom to transact business.”

Transparency New Zealand believes that this statement is tantamount to entrapment as first you are ripped off and then you find you can do nothing about it. this all happens very publicly with hoards of people standing about saying I see nothing.

Transparency New Zealand advocates the ” trust but Verify ” approach to any dealings with any company or person anywhere .

Transparency New Zealand :Corruption is dishonest activity in which a person acts contrary to the interests of the University and abuses his/her position of trust in order to achieve some personal gain or advantage for themselves, or provide an advantage/disadvantage for another person or entity.

It also involves corrupt conduct by an organization , or a person purporting to act on behalf of and in the interests of the organization , in order to secure some form of improper advantage for the organization either directly or indirectly.

The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient’s conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.

Transparency New Zealand:Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain . Fraud included Identity fraud and the use of ” organizations” which do not exist. In New Zealand one of the largest vehicles for fraud are trusts .

Transparency New Zealand is extremely concerned with the conduct of TI-NZ . We suspect that the directors have handed over the reins to just one person an economist who misunderstands the importance of corruption prevention . We suspect that her objectives are to assist business development and growth rather than combating corruption . We believe that Susan Snivley is an excellent business woman with an objective of bringing in money rather than an objective of independence.

True corruption prevention comes from Accountability , I gave this example of accountability to a director of TINZ recently with regards to Suzanne Snively LinkedIn profile which claimed she was the director of transparency International Limited

We believe that Susan Snively wished to create a false perception of her abilities , she was blowing her trumpet too vigorously and duplicated some of her roles and presented those as though they were different entities.

Because no one checks in New Zealand when may have believed that she could get away with it.. this is often the case.

Corruption = Monopoly + discretion – accountability

Susan had control over her Linked in account .. Monopoly

She and she alone had discretion of what was presented.

We are holding her accountable

= Linked in profile changed. and no corruption

I also gave an example of perception

When I was on Police patrol in Rotorua , I saw a decapitated cat on the road, I made a comment to the driver about the grizzly find.

He disagreed with me and said that it was nothing more than a plastic bag.

Because our views were so different we went back and on close inspection found that we were both right, it was a cat with its head stuck in a plastic bag.

The reality was that he cat lived to see another day . Happy ending !!!!

When you deal with perceptions you cannot just look from one side. You have to look at the facts and consider the views of many and not just a few.

You cannot promote the lack of corruption by will fully being blind and intentionally ignoring the corruption which is occurring.

To examine the corruption which is occurring and to call for accountability for those involved is what will prevent corruption from blowing out of control.

What good are laws which are not enforced, codes of conduct which are ignored , and processes which are flawed.

ACCOUNTABILITY is what we should be insisting on , and by doing a report showing e.g. that the auditor Generals office is doing fantastic work , when they are openly ignoring corruption and fraud, does not serve NZ .

A report which has been funded by the party concerned is not an impartial report.

The office of the auditor general is a member of transparency International and has given $15,000 and $30,000 in two consecutive years ( I have not checked beyond that ) when you get $30,000 from someone and want to get $30,000 again next year you will give them a favourable report. This process is akin to reverse bribery where the state is paying someone to give a glowing report .

Being no partisan and apolitical is not enough TI NZ should be totally Neutral and not be acting for an on behalf of businesses in New Zealand to encourage business growth.

I look forward to working with Transparency International New Zealand to truly strive to make New Zealand Transparent by focusing on ACCOUNTABILITY . I would like to start by making Transparency International Accountable to their code of ethics and the definitions of fraud and corruption which I have provided above.

We look forward to hearing from the directors of TI-NZ and we undertake to publish their response .

A quick look at their web site http://www.transparency.org.nz/ flashes up messages such as” Least corrupt public sector in the world “.“New Zealand’s high trust public sector is its greatest competitive advantage”

The integrity survey cost $174,320 , the accounts do not reveal who the recipients of that payment was but I do believe that a sizable chunk of it went to the chair person Susan Snively .

the survey was funded in the following manner

Income
National Integrity Systems Assessment
Donation: Gama Foundation $15,000
Office of the Auditor General $30.000
The Treasury $30.000
Ministry of Justice $30.000
Statistics New Zealand $15.000
States Services Commission $10.000
Ministry of Social Development $10.000
Other $55.000

Internal control systems were deemed to be the most effective method of detecting fraud . This is best assessed in conjunction with the Price Water House coopers publication prepared on behalf of the auditor general page 85is particularly interesting in thatit shows a verylow percentage ofentities having a whistle-blowers hotline.

What I notice here is that all the frauds are $$ based. In true auditor style we need figures. but not all frauds occur in such a way that good book keeping can pick them up – there is a very large field called Identity fraud which is not represented in the tables and I wonder if it is at all considered.

Again we have the word theft occurring repeatedly , Theft generally implies that you have something and next it is gone without your permission.

The frauds which are very prevalent in New Zealand are identity frauds perpetrated through fictitious organizations and secret trusts.

Money is moved from one entity into a seemingly legitimate trust and then the trust is split off and dissolved in a very non transparent manner

The fraud which has impacted on my life is one where a person pretended to be a trust. a fictitious trust obtained law enforcement powers and the one person carried out the duties of this fictional trust using the staff and resources of a council . This type of fraud is apparently condoned by the auditor general as shown by this correspondence.correspondence with the auditor general

The office of the auditor general claims to be Parliaments watch dog it would appear that this watch dog is asleep as the office of the auditor General in New Zealand condones fraud as follows

1.Making a false application to the minister 22 November 1999 this document in itself is a fraud on the government .. using a document for a pecuniary advantage. AWINZ does not exist it is not a legal person in any manner or form. condoning a criminal act.

2.Central government giving coercive law enforcement powers to an entity which does not exist and no one checks for its exists, even when they know it does not exist they continue to pretend that it does. condoning a criminal act.

3.MPI not having the slightest idea of what a trust is and how a trust should function, and allowing the false application to be justified because 6 years later they received a trust deed which was signed 3 months after the application was made. The fact that the people who had signed that deed had never met or made a valid decision between, was totally beside the point. condoning incompetence .

4.MAF ( now MPI) not being in possession of a trust deed with the party to whom law enforcement powers had been given and then getting a trust deed which was altered or fabricated, and ignoring this despite having this pointed out to them. Deed provide June 2006 this is the deed MAF have on file condoning incompetence .

12.The processes within the government department and councils are such that they serve to conceal fraud as the very persons involved and implicated for their lack of diligence are put in charge of the release of information, additionally Mr Wells was consulted on what was released to me and what was not there was no impartiality between the department/ council and third parties condoning this incompetent practice .

Why do we have to pretend to be the least corrupt why cant we deal with the reality , Corruption happens, dont condone it deal with it that will ensure that corruption does not ruin lives .

By outsourcing your services to private enterprise teh office of the auditor general has lost control over the process , but in the end its the perception that is worth preserving and that is why the office of the auditor general is a member of transparency International New Zealand , that is as good as any watch dog being a member of the local gang.

I work as a licensed private Investigator, I was a former Police prosecuting Sergeant. The corruption I see on adaily basis appalls me.

I see our courts being used to perpetrate and conceal criminal actions.Evidence and truth have no apparent place in our courts and lawyers whoare officers of the courtcan lie their teeth out without fear of repercussion and are believed over physical evidence to the contrary.

I tried to join TI-NZ three timeseach time I have been declined , Susan now says that it is because of the name of my company,.. For the record I set thatup after I was declined the first time. I set up Transparency New Zealand because someone has totake corruption in New Zealand seriouslyand TI-NZ does not.

I appreciate that TINZ does not look at individual casesbutTI-NZgoes further than that and totallyignores what is going onandis compounding to the corruption issue in New Zealand by attempting to discreditthose of us whoare saying that the alleged low level of corruption is a device for entrapment.

For the record currently I am dealing with a womanwhohas not had onecent of her matrimonial property settlement , she has been left millions down despite being married to a wealthy man for over 30 yearssuch cases are frequent, wives are cheaper than prostitutes and housekeepersyou can swindle a wife and spit her out at the other endall done using the court to deny her, her legal rights. ( unfortunately she is not the first and she won’t be the lastit is a trend amongst those married to the very rich or to lawyers .

A wealthy American was charged with 22counts for fraud. His co offenderwas convicted , he skipped the county for5 yearsdid a deal with the crown law office and his charges were dropped, he had fabricated a director and liquidator for a company to avoid paying a $65,000bill

I am dealing with a man who had a call from the bailiffdemanding $15,000, it appears that a claim went through disputes tribunalwherean insurance brokersimply said his boat was hit by anotherthen named someone in the neighbourhood whohad recently moved. No evidence not even the name of his boathe is suddenly liable fora ridiculous sum, the court should never havefound any one liablewhen there is not one photograph of alleged damage or any evidence of their involvement.

Secret trusts areour weapon of deceit , they are so secret no one sees them and the mention of such a trust is sufficient towin anycourt casebecause our lawyersall use themto conceal their assetsand hide reality.

We regularly have proceedings commenced withouta party being served papers, My own company was put into liquidation thatway the first I knew was when the official assignee called. This also happened to a lady whose child is being legally abducted by the sperm donors parent .. all done through thecourt all done through deception , the grand parents of thisyoungest of 5 childrenwant toreplace theirdruggy son who killed himselfon a motor bike , they now want to pull a family apart and our courts facilitate this through notpunishing persons for false affidavits.

My personal crime in life was toaskMPIwhylaw enforcement powers had been given to the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand( AWINZ ) .AWINZ did not exist in any manner or formit is merelyidentity fraud condonedat very high levels.The only man hiding behind that name was theman who had written the animal welfare act and facilitated the issuingof such law enforcement powers , he also advised on the legislation as independent adviser and further to thathe ran the operationfromWaitakere city council premisesusing council resources infrastructureand staff for personal enrichment ( he had a bank account in the name of AWINZwhich only he administered. )My second crime in life was to ask council why a council manager could use council facilities forhis own use ( public office private gain—all sanctioned in NZ )

We do not have anavenue forkeeping any one,least of all lawyersaccountable to the law.The law is used for the furtherance of corruption and Government departments are paying T-INZ handsomely to give good reportsto show how well we are doing .Keeping the perception alive

When we pretend there is no corruptionmore people get hurt.. corruption doesruin livesit destroyed my familyyet TI-NZ stands byprotects the very peoplewhohelp conceal corruption.

As a besides.I am a member of the certified fraud examiners association , It would appear that Susan Snively has reported me to the associationto have me removed from the membership based on a court judgementfor defamation in which I had my rightsto a defence removed and the other party committed perjury.In New Zealand we do notprosecute perjuryso withoutan obligation to truth in the courtsour courts have becomeexcessively unsafe.

Murrayif you are truly interested incorruption in New Zealand and not in the perception, then you may wish to meet with me, I have lots of hard evidence, it is not just the fact that these things occurbutwhen we conceal and cover up these mattersthat is a true indicationthatcorruption is out of control.A country which is truly anti-corruption would dealwith corruptionand its perpetrators.

It would be nice for Transparency New Zealand and transparency International to work together totruly make New Zealand the least corrupt by ensuring that corruptionisviewed seriouslyand dealt with harshly .

But that is not going to happenthere are simply too manywho enjoy this false pretence as it paves their way to riches.

Transparency New Zealand is a voluntary organisation . We are not funded in any way other than by Donations
If you support our work and wish to see us continue please support us with your donation. Thank you
account number 01-0258-0045994-00